Okay i pulled this from yahoo news. lets see what everyone thinks about this. wether you think the writer in this was biasaed one way or the other, its hard to fight if your dealing with actual quotes from the people they talked to. if it is false i assume allot of lawsuits would be coming up.
i just copied and pasted the article. heres the link.

The cast of "Friends"
Warner Bros. TelevisionSome of TV's top executives from the past four decades may have gotten more than they bargained for when they agreed to be interviewed for a politically charged book that was released Tuesday, because video of their controversial remarks will soon be hitting the Internet.

The book makes the case that TV industry executives, writers and producers use their clout to advance a liberal political agenda. The author bases his thesis on, among other things, 39 taped interviews that he'll roll out piecemeal during the next three weeks.

The Hollywood Reporter obtained several of the not-yet-released clips. Each contains a snippet of an interview, usually some historical footage of the TV shows the interviewee was responsible for and, naturally, a plea to purchase the book, "Primetime Propaganda" by Ben Shapiro and published by Broad Side, an imprint of HarperCollins.

In one video, "Friends" co-creator Marta Kauffman says that when she cast Candace Gingrich-Jones, half-sister of Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as the minister of a lesbian wedding, "There was a bit of [a middle finger] in it to the right wing."

Kauffman also acknowledges she "put together a staff of mostly liberal people," which is another major point of Shapiro's book: that conservatives aren't welcome in Hollywood.

However, the ranks of dumb right-wingers has dwindled, according to Harris, whose video has her saying: "At least, you know, we put Obama in office, and so people, I think, are getting  have gotten  a little bit smarter."

Some of the videos have executives making rather obvious revelations, like when Larry Gelbart and Gene Reynolds talk about pacifist messages in "M*A*S*H" or when "MacGyver" producer Vin Di Bona says anti-gun messages were a recurring theme in that show.

But an additional video has Di Bona, who also created "America's Funniest Home Videos," becoming remarkably blunt about his approval of a lack of political diversity in Hollywood. When Shapiro asks what he thinks of conservative critics who say everyone in Hollywood is liberal, Di Bona responds: "I think it's probably accurate, and I'm happy about it."

Another video has Leonard Goldberg  who executive produces "Blue Bloods" for CBS and a few decades ago exec produced such hits as "Fantasy Island," "Charlie's Angels" and "Starsky and Hutch"  saying that liberalism in the TV industry is "100 percent dominant, and anyone who denies it is kidding, or not telling the truth."

Shapiro asks if politics are a barrier to entry. "Absolutely," Goldberg says.

Hear an exceprt from the Goldberg interview:

Listen to more clips at HollywoodReporter.com

When Shapiro tells Fred Pierce, the president of ABC in the 1980s who was instrumental in Disney's acquisition of ESPN, that "It's very difficult for people who are politically conservative to break in" to television, he responds: "I can't argue that point." Those who don't lean left, he says, "don't promote it. It stays underground."

Another video rolling out soon has "House" creator David Shore acknowledging that "there is an assumption in this town that everybody is on the left side of the spectrum, and that the few people on the right side, I think people look at them somewhat aghast, and I'm sure it doesn't help them."

In the book, subtitled "The true Hollywood story of how the left took over your TV," Shapiro also tells anecdotes of bias against conservatives. One example is Dwight Schultz, best known for his roles as Murdock in "The A-Team" and Barclay in "Star Trek: The Next Generation."

[Photo: Keith Olbermann's First Current TV Ad Revealed]

The late Bruce Paltrow knew that Schultz was a fan of President Ronald Reagan. When Schultz showed up to audition for "St. Elsewhere," a show Paltrow produced, to read for the part of Fiscus, Paltrow told him: "There's not going to be a Reagan [expletive] on this show!" The part went to Howie Mandel.

"Most nepotism in Hollywood isn't familial, it's ideological," Shapiro writes in the book. "Friends hire friends. And those friends just happen to share their politics."

Another video Shapiro will release shortly has producer-director Nicholas Meyer being asked point-blank whether conservatives are discriminated against in Hollywood. "Well, I hope so," he answers. Meyer also admits his political agenda for "The Day After," a TV movie he directed for ABC that was seen by 100 million people when it aired in 1983.

"My private, grandiose notion was that this movie would unseat Ronald Reagan when he ran for re-election," Meyer says.

Even seemingly harmless shows like "Happy Days" and "Sesame Street" have been used to advance a progressive agenda, according to Shapiro.

For example, William Bickley, a writer on "The Partridge Family" and a producer on "Happy Days," says he infused Vietnam War protest messages into the latter. "I was into all that," he says in a soon-to-be-released video.

"Television has been perhaps the most impressive weapon in the left's political arsenal," Shapiro argues in the book.

Other upcoming videos include: "Family Ties" creator Gary David Goldberg explaining how he tried to make Republican character Alex Keaton the bad guy but that actor Michael J. Fox was too darn lovable; and president of MTV Networks Entertainment Group Doug Herzog talking about his network having "superpowers" when it comes to its influence over young people.

The advancement of a gay and lesbian political agenda is mentioned by multiple executives, including Marcy Carsey, a producer of "Soap" and "Roseanne," and "Desperate Housewives" producer Marc Cherry, who is a rarity in Hollywood: a gay Republican.

In her video, Carsey also says she insisted on portraying characters smoking marijuana in "That '70s Show." "If this is a problem for you, we certainly understand, and we just won't do the show," she told executives at Fox.

Shapiro released two videos Tuesday, one featuring "COPS" creator John Langley saying he's partial to segments where white people are the criminals, and the other has Fred Silverman, the former head of ABC and later NBC, saying "there's only one perspective, and it's a very progressive perspective" in TV comedy today.

[Related: Alec Baldwin Joins Twitter; Which 10 People is He Following?]

Shapiro said the executives felt comfortable talking about politics with him because they assumed, incorrectly, that he is on the left.

"Most of them didn't Google me. If they had, they would have realized where I am politically," he said. "I played on their stereotypes. When I showed up for the interviews, I wore my Harvard Law baseball cap  my name is Ben Shapiro and I attended Harvard, so there's a 98.7 percent chance I'm a liberal. Except I happen not to be."

Shapiro said he'll time the debut of certain videos for maximum effect. One that slams Sean Hannity, for example, is reserved for his scheduled appearance on Hannity's show on the Fox News Channel.

And conservative pundit Ann Coulter has a new book out June 7. "I have two people ripping her by name, so I'll release those the day Ann's book is released," Shapiro said.

One of those slamming Coulter is George Schlatter, who directed and produced "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In" in the 1970s, using the show to knock Republicans and the Vietnam War. "The fact we [ticked] the Pentagon off, that pleased me enormously," he says before calling Coulter a vulgar word.

In his video, Schlatter also goes off on right-wing radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham.

Shapiro says he didn't disclose that he'd be releasing the tapes, but that his subjects have no reason to complain.

"I asked them for permission to tape, and there's no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're being interviewed for a book," he said.

"If they're going to be shocked at something, it should be themselves, not me," Shapiro said. "They should be shocked that opinion is so one-sided in Hollywood that it's OK to say, 'I'm fine with discrimination.'"

"My whole book is a plea for openness in the industry," he added. "Hire people from the other side of the aisle once in a while, or at least stop mocking them."

sounds interesting. not that any of this is a surprise, of course, other than that many EPs willing to readily admit their bias. watch for the gay and lesbian political agenda to be the rallying call for the right though...thats the one theyll trumpet the loudest im sure.

Some of it seems to have merit and is the least surprising thing ive read. But then some of it seems border line conspiracy theory to me. Sesame street is used to advance a progressive agenda!?!?!? Please. I find it funny that so many people on the right are so quick to tell minorities or women to shut up whenever they feel they might have been the victim of discrimination but seem to be under the impression that the world is just out to get them and around every corner is an anti-conservative message. Also keep in mind that the actors, writers, etc in hollywood are all union members. very well paid union members at that. I'd guess that would be another part of why they tend to be liberal and more standoffish to conservatives. unions wouldnt want anti-union sentiment expressed by their members.

conspiracy is someone thinking its going on. these are the actual people telling you that its going on. there is a diffrence there.

for years its been said that there is no liberal tendancies in entertainment. how its all an illusion the right has made up. and here are these big media names coming right out and saying there is. and thats how they do it. it was made for years and hidden and told that it doesnt happen. but then fox comes around a republican/conservative station. and they are raked over the coals as being biased and the devil and what have you like they were doing something new or diffrent then the liberal media was doing.

So you are comparing HOLLYWOOD actors and directors(fiction) with NEWS stations? Completely different things there dude. Where were the CNN reporters saying they slant the news?
And you agree that Sesame Street premotes progressive agendas? thats where i call conspiracy hence why i said "Some of it seems to have merit and is the least surprising thing ive read. But then some of it seems border line conspiracy theory to me."

Sesame street is NOT brainwashing kids to be liberal no matter what conservatives say

Sesame street is NOT brainwashing kids to be liberal no matter what conservatives say

you do realize that it's the creators of the show that are now admitting their liberal bias, right? im not sure how thats really an arguable point.

and he was using the comparison to show that there is an extreme liberal prejudice in the MEDIA as a whole, not saying just news. the reference to fox news was because they are the opposite end to that bias, yet get blasted for being such

Im not trying to be an ass or make enemies but...
From the article
"Even seemingly harmless shows like "Happy Days" and "Sesame Street" have been used to advance a progressive agenda, according to Shapiro."

not "According the the creators." "according to Shapiro" Which creator of sesame street says this? Who did he talk to and when? Does he give quotes, sound bits or anything that supports this? or is he just being an idiot?

When reporting the news (IE facts) any bias should be kept to a minimum. In entertainment (art) people are allowed to express their personal thoughts and views through their work. They arent claiming to give you straight facts or fair and balanced news. Such personal views should not be injected to distort truth when reporting facts. Which is why "News" stations like Fox or MSNBC get blasted all the time people on the right say "OMG MSNBC suck they have a liberal agenda" And people on the left say "OMG FOX sucks they have a conservative agenda". While sane people understand that when a news station has shows labeled "opinion" its just that: opinionated. if you watch the shows labeled "news" (IE not Hannity, Maddow, etc) but during the day you get a fairly straight story with some injection here or there of opinion but we cant really totally and completely remove all opinions from anything really.

well lets see, shaprio sits there and in the brief news article throws out several actual quotes from people and mentions sesame street. so id have to bet he talked to creaters of seseame street and its in the book. why would he have all this actual quotes from shows and then throw seasame street out there if it wasnt in his book? so yes chances are sesame street had an agenda. if something like happy days and the partridge family have an agenda why can't sesame street? and your missing allot of the points. go back and read the quotes. this isnt just about pushing an agenda on the show. its about people actually saying this guy isnt going to get on my show because hes a repulican. not letting someone act on yoru show just because you dont think exactly like them. thast pretty bad.

i have nothing against anyone having their views and beliefs and things they stand by. but when your making childrens shows or just general tv and you have to skew things to attack people you dont agree with. or have to keep people from working on your show because they are a democrat or a republican that to me is just kind of pathetic.

and when i brought up fox you immedietly jumped on the news bandwagon. go back and read my post. i said when fox came around. you do know fox is an actual tv station just like cbs and nbc, i neve mentioned the news at all. you did.

The Hollywood Reporter obtained several of the not-yet-released clips. Each contains a snippet of an interview, usually some historical footage of the TV shows the interviewee was responsible for and, naturally, a plea to purchase the book, "Primetime Propaganda" by Ben Shapiro and published by Broad Side, an imprint of HarperCollins.

So we will rely on snippets to make a case out it? Ok, if that's what it takes to hold water.

To me, it boils down to this. It is insanely sad and pathetic that this must resolute to the label of: "liberal-bias " when it comes to showing-off and exposing of what this world consist of for centuries. Gasp, there are homosexuals? Gasp, there are other religions other than Christianity. Gasp, there are people of other color other than white? Gasp, there are poor people. Gasp, there are... women!
Do you all honestly think that by just "sweeping it under the rug," reality will go away? Afraid of what people or children will see? Turn it off or change the channel, and be a parent and teach them of what you believe, respectively.
I guess it is easier and convenient to just point fingers of what Hollywood is "supposedly" doing and not be responsible.

sndsgood wrote:

i have nothing against anyone having their views and beliefs and things they stand by. but when your making childrens shows or just general tv and you have to skew things to attack people you dont agree with. or have to keep people from working on your show because they are a democrat or a republican that to me is just kind of pathetic.

Really? Where was the so called "skewed things" was it the "letter of the day," or when Count Dracula was counting up to twenty, or was it when Elmo was playing with the fish... maybe he should have cooked it right, looks less "liberal skewed," no?

Yhea, this would be a conspiracy. A belief that is outside of the norm all to end in evil plot. Especially with the Sesame Street BS.

It's stories like these that makes the new class of Right Wing look like wackos. What is even more interesting (if this is remotely true) this is under the First Amendment for free speech. Don't like it... turn to the christian network, listen to country, watch Chuck Norris movies and pray under the prescription-drug laced belly flap of Rush Limbaugh. It is not like you have no options, right.

Ok Im sorry I figured you were talking about the news station because I thought you were a logical individual. Have you seen their TV lineup? Glee, House, Family Guy, Hells Kitchen which of these shows have ever been accused of supporting conservative agenda? please link me to an article accusing shows on the Fox station of brainwashing people to be conservative.

So yes while you never mentioned the news station specifically I figured thats what you meant. Where is the outcry from liberals you keep whining about that fox TV shows are too conservatives? I think youre making that up man. Combine this with the fact that you think Sesame Street is brainwashing kids to be liberal and I think this conversation is just a big waste of time on my part.

Mr Goodwrench: You sir have made me lol. Conservatives need to stop being so afraid of everything.

its been posted in here before how there is no liberal bias in tv and the media that was just a whole right wing made up story that wasnt true. and here are these liberal hollywood types coming out and saying its true and now its. "well everyone new it" . i just find it funny how people had claimed for years that there wasn't any bias and now that its out in the open the people change the story to say well its always been this way. i mean look at your responce. these are the actual hollywood people saying "yes we did it" and even in your replies your saying "supposed" like you dont believe it. you ask me where are the skewed things? did you read the article. go read it again. quotes from people saying how they did this or did that to basically give the other side the middle finger. that to me is just silly. i never said we should not air those shows or that kids shouldnt see it or anything like that. your reading way to much into this. i just think that its kinda retarded to do that sort of thing, guys saying they hoped there show would get someone elected. its a tv show. meant to entertain. and these people are trying to use it to thumb there noses at people is just silly.

again goodwrench you have the same single mindedness of volt. a whole giant article and you have to pinpoint sesame street as a main point of your argument. did you not ready about the guy quoting he wouldn't hire someone just because the guy was republican? maybe were just diffrent and you think its totally fine to not hire someone qualified to do the job just because you disagree with his political stance. me, i work in the construction field where half the guys are conservative repulicans and half hardcore democrats and i could care less what your political view is as long as you can do the job. maybe that just me and my outdated conservative thinking.

mention fox and everyone says how its a big conservative blah blah blah. you dont have to mention news you proved my very point volt. as soon as i said fox you jumped on the station because they do news. it didnt even matter about the shows. it was allready in your head. and again back to the whole sesame street deal. you assume that i believe they were brainwashing kids just because i posted the article up. sorry man but your a small thinker. i could post an article up saying the earth is flat, it doesnt mean i believe it. again as i told goodwrench, and entire article written with actual quotes you can read and you have to keep grabbing on to the one single show that there was no quotes from. why not discuss all the shows where they quoted people.

well lets see, shaprio sits there and in the brief news article throws out several actual quotes from people and mentions sesame street. so id have to bet he talked to creaters of seseame street and its in the book. why would he have all this actual quotes from shows and then throw seasame street out there if it wasnt in his book? so yes chances are sesame street had an agenda. if something like happy days and the partridge family have an agenda why can't sesame street?

i have nothing against anyone having their views and beliefs and things they stand by. but when your making childrens shows or just general tv and you have to skew things to attack people you dont agree with. or have to keep people from working on your show because they are a democrat or a republican that to me is just kind of pathetic.

sndsgood wrote:

YOU specifically said you believed sesame street had an agenda. I said it was BS and YOU defended that point. Only after you defended the point did I then say you believed it. Stop being an idiot dude. Again Fox TV shows like Glee actually are liberal so theres no way in hell people claim they are conservative. the ONLY Fox station that gets accused of having a conservative agenda is the Fox NEWS station. Link me to one article claiming Glee or any show on the Fox TV station has a conservative agenda. You cant do it.

YOU specifically said you believed sesame street had an agenda. I said it was BS and YOU defended that point. Only after you defended the point did I then say you believed it. Stop being an idiot dude. Again Fox TV shows like Glee actually are liberal so theres no way in hell people claim they are conservative. the ONLY Fox station that gets accused of having a conservative agenda is the Fox NEWS station. Link me to one article claiming Glee or any show on the Fox TV station has a conservative agenda. You cant do it.

you bolded it. i never said i specifically believed at all. i said chances are they had an agenda based off of the article i posted. you really do seem to have a issue with sesame street for some reason. again. does this mean they were trying to turn kids to be liberals? not not in the least, most likely it was something behind the scenes like only hiring liberal actors or doing something to thumb there noses at conservatives. you know the same thing that goes along with the rest of the article. read the article. they listed quotes from half a dozen other shows about having an agendas but you cant beleive that the people behind sesame street did as well? dont be so naieve. everything in that article and you want to keep hanging onto the sesame street issue which was the least talked about in the story. and your whole arguement against the story is that you dont believe it. great stance there. you dont beleive it so then it must not be true.

im not going to go find you links. just answer this for yourself. who owns fox? which side does he lean on? is fox a conservative or liberal company as a whole? i'll give you a hint, its not liberal. wether its has liberal shows or not is irrelevent. do you believe that the fox network is liberal?

its been posted in here before how there is no liberal bias in tv and the media that was just a whole right wing made up story that wasnt true. and here are these liberal hollywood types coming out and saying its true and now its. "well everyone new it" . i just find it funny how people had claimed for years that there wasn't any bias and now that its out in the open the people change the story to say well its always been this way.

this is exactly what i'm getting out of this story and the purpose of this post. neither you nor i are condemning nor supporting this liberal bias, merely pointing out that it exists and suddenly it's an argument about how sesame st doesnt brain wash kids? come on now! just like you pointed out i'm willing to put money on the book having direct quotes from creators of ss that supports the fact that they did actually have a liberal bias as well. otherwise there would be no point for the author to have mentioned it and would only lead to discredit him if so.

dont worry man...i understand what youre saying.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

To me, it boils down to this. It is insanely sad and pathetic that this must resolute to the label of: "liberal-bias " when it comes to showing-off and exposing of what this world consist of for centuries. Gasp, there are homosexuals? Gasp, there are other religions other than Christianity. Gasp, there are people of other color other than white? Gasp, there are poor people. Gasp, there are... women!
Do you all honestly think that by just "sweeping it under the rug," reality will go away? Afraid of what people or children will see? Turn it off or change the channel, and be a parent and teach them of what you believe, respectively.
I guess it is easier and convenient to just point fingers of what Hollywood is "supposedly" doing and not be responsible.

there you go again, trying to slip off into a tangent rather than address the actual issue of what is being discussed. no one is saying that what has been shown is either good or bad, right or wrong, or anything beyond what it is: a liberally biased agenda. thats it. we're not saying anything more than that. yet you try to argue that someone is trying to sweep gays/women/poor people/etc under the rug?

what? where do you get that? again, youre just making stuff up to try and "prove a point" that isnt what is being talked about. yep, same ol' goodwrench right there.

if you want to argue the opposition, then try to disprove the fact that there is a liberal bias in all of these shows, not just in what they choose to film, but also who they hire and work with. i guar-an-fuc-king-tee that if those liberal/conservative roles were reversed you'd be @!#$ting yourself as you screamed about the right wing bias until you were red in the face. why the difference now?

plainly put: if its wrong for one side to do something then its wrong for the other to do the same, regardless if you support their politics or not..

its been posted in here before how there is no liberal bias in tv and the media that was just a whole right wing made up story that wasnt true. and here are these liberal hollywood types coming out and saying its true and now its. "well everyone new it" . i just find it funny how people had claimed for years that there wasn't any bias and now that its out in the open the people change the story to say well its always been this way. i mean look at your responce. these are the actual hollywood people saying "yes we did it" and even in your replies your saying "supposed" like you dont believe it. you ask me where are the skewed things? did you read the article. go read it again. quotes from people saying how they did this or did that to basically give the other side the middle finger. that to me is just silly. i never said we should not air those shows or that kids shouldnt see it or anything like that. your reading way to much into this. i just think that its kinda retarded to do that sort of thing, guys saying they hoped there show would get someone elected. its a tv show. meant to entertain. and these people are trying to use it to thumb there noses at people is just silly.

First, like I said before: "So we will rely on snippets to make a case out it? Ok, if that's what it takes to hold water.
Second, where is this "bias?" Because "basically give the other side the middle finger" is a futile act, not an agenda like the what the article is trying to push.
Third, you did mention "but when your making childrens shows or just general tv and you have to skew things to attack people you dont agree with. So I ask where is it?

Quote:

again goodwrench you have the same single mindedness of volt. a whole giant article and you have to pinpoint sesame street as a main point of your argument. did you not ready about the guy quoting he wouldn't hire someone just because the guy was republican? maybe were just diffrent and you think its totally fine to not hire someone qualified to do the job just because you disagree with his political stance. me, i work in the construction field where half the guys are conservative repulicans and half hardcore democrats and i could care less what your political view is as long as you can do the job. maybe that just me and my outdated conservative thinking.

No, I actually answered the article and you. You refuse to like my response as it has sarcasms to your nonsense. So now, suddenly I'm "single mindedness."
So what if he/she wants to hire of a certain party, it happens both ways, nothing new, you won't change it. Why argue this as oppose to the so called "agenda" the article is speaking on.
Get what you want to argue straight, the hiring process, or the so called: "agenda."

No, I actually answered the article and you. You refuse to like my response as it has sarcasms to your nonsense. So now, suddenly I'm "single mindedness."
So what if he/she wants to hire of a certain party, it happens both ways, nothing new, you won't change it. Why argue this as oppose to the so called "agenda" the article is speaking on.

no you didn't address the article directly. you merely tried to say "hey, poor people have been around forever so showing them isnt an agenda" which blatantly ignores the direct quotes from the creators of these shows that state that they were in fact pushing a progressive liberal agenda for their own purposes, both in content as well as staffing, going so far as to refuse to hire or work with people who were republicans, regardless of their qualifications.

lets flip that around and substitute republican for democrat. or for black. or for gay. or for anything else. would it be ok to not hire any of those people, qualified candidates, just because they fell into one of those other categories? no, not at all. so why is it ok now? answer that directly, if you can.

your only argument of support for this is "well, the other side does it too so it must be ok!"? i mean seriously? "oh, well its been happening for awhile so its ok to do." so has discrimination of all other sorts...but you dont support those other forms do you? why is it suddenly ok now?

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Get what you want to argue straight, the hiring process, or the so called: "agenda."

both the selective discrimination of workers as well as the left leaning content being pushed is what qualifies this as not only biased but also an agenda. there is seriously no way to argue that they arent, especially when the people involved freely admit it themselves.

(tabs) wrote:

if you want to argue the opposition, then try to disprove the fact that there is a liberal bias in all of these shows, not just in what they choose to film, but also who they hire and work with.

First, like I said before: "So we will rely on snippets to make a case out it? Ok, if that's what it takes to hold water.
Second, where is this "bias?" Because "basically give the other side the middle finger" is a futile act, not an agenda like the what the article is trying to push.
Third, you did mention "but when your making childrens shows or just general tv and you have to skew things to attack people you dont agree with. So I ask where is it?

snipets? you mean actual quotes? yeah that is what we have to work with because that was all the article had. they couldnt really add more or it would become a book which was actually what the article was about. the fact that shaprio has a book coming out about this. where is the bias? the very quotes mentioned tell you directly that they were biased. not hiring someone based on there polictal leanings sounds like an agenda to me. hiring an all liberal group to work for you, sounds like bias to me. would you not agree. is it illegal. no. doesnt mean its wrong. it doesnt mean the other side doesnt do it. but it also doesnt make it right, and it does show bias.as tabs said it used to be okay to discriminate against blacks, then women, then fat people, then gays, then pregnant mothers. i guess your cool with discrimination.

as for where is it ? i guess youlle have to read the book to find out. again it was an article about the book. there only going to give you small little portions of it. you act as if i was going around looking for the media bias and this is all i came up with. no, i just happened to read the article and posted it here for people to read. big diffrence. i just made that sentance based on the article. if you would have also wrote down the rest of my sentance i said when you do that, that is pathetic. i didnt call anyone out specifically or say everyone is doing it, i just said when you are doing that then i find that pretty pathetic.

get what i want to argue straight? one or the other? sorry didnt know we could only discuss 1 item. to me both are wrong.

snipets? you mean actual quotes? yeah that is what we have to work with because that was all the article had. they couldnt really add more or it would become a book which was actually what the article was about. the fact that shaprio has a book coming out about this. where is the bias? the very quotes mentioned tell you directly that they were biased. not hiring someone based on there polictal leanings sounds like an agenda to me. hiring an all liberal group to work for you, sounds like bias to me. would you not agree. is it illegal. no. doesnt mean its wrong. it doesnt mean the other side doesnt do it. but it also doesnt make it right, and it does show bias.as tabs said it used to be okay to discriminate against blacks, then women, then fat people, then gays, then pregnant mothers. i guess your cool with discrimination.

Yhea snippets... you know, the "one liners." You know, the one where I first quoted directly from the article "snippets." What happened sndsgood, got tired of reading on the second paragraph to not read the third? There are your "snippets."
So now you want to argue hiring process, fine. So what? What happens now? Since you blatantly admit it happens on the Right Wing side? So what will happen next on the Left Wing side? Please elaborate your conspiracy as to why we should all pay attention to who the fuck they want to hire? What will be the end conclusion? Do tell.
Also something that you are born with (race, ethnicity, gender) is a bit different than a political view, which is why one discrimination is illegal and the other is not. Ponder that before you steal useless thoughts.
I know you're smarter than "good 'ol Taby," so don't go by his philosophy of: "I'll throw crap on the wall in hopes it will stick" style of arguments.

Quote:

as for where is it ? i guess youlle have to read the book to find out. again it was an article about the book. there only going to give you small little portions of it. you act as if i was going around looking for the media bias and this is all i came up with. no, i just happened to read the article and posted it here for people to read. big diffrence. i just made that sentance based on the article. if you would have also wrote down the rest of my sentance i said when you do that, that is pathetic. i didnt call anyone out specifically or say everyone is doing it, i just said when you are doing that then i find that pretty pathetic.

You sure did say that and you also said this:i have nothing against anyone having their views and beliefs and things they stand by. but when your making childrens shows or just general tv and you have to skew things to attack people you dont agree with.
Which is why I made the sarcastic comment that I did. It seems you were trying to suggest the "Left Wing" is out to brainwash, err "skew things"... especially the kids. I know you don't want to harpoon on the Sesame Street comment, but you said it, not me.

Quote:

get what i want to argue straight? one or the other? sorry didnt know we could only discuss 1 item. to me both are wrong.

Yep, you start off on how one side is hiring more "Left Wingers" and when that idea is shot down because the Right Wingers does the same $hit. Then there is a plot to get the kids brain washed, sorry... "skewed things." And when I answer your comments I get... "look there are more Left Wing people in Hollywood." So in other words, where do you want to go with this, your paranoia or the snippets in the article that we are told to buy in to?
Your thread, you decide.

Also something that you are born with (race, ethnicity, gender) is a bit different than a political view, which is why one discrimination is illegal and the other is not. Ponder that before you steal useless thoughts.

you're not born with a certain religion are you? not all handicaps are from birth are they? even some gay people will tell you it was a choice vs being born that way, although not all agree, but having a sex change operation definitely is a choice. chazz bono better not apply at your place, right? so by your logic just because these things are not something a person was born with it should be free to discriminate against them, right? please explain the difference.

i mean is your argument seriously that since the eeoc doesnt safeguard against discrimination against political affiliations that it is perfectly ok to exclude them? because the eeoc also doesnt prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, or marital status either, although certain states and municipalities do protect all of the above, poli aff included. yet if this were a discussion about a gay person, or a married woman, or a single mom not getting a job, you'd probably champion their cause. but since its a republican thats getting treated like @!#$, youre more than fine to turn a blind eye to it. way to practice what you preach and be unbiased, which is the crux of this conversation.

just admit youre mad because the left wing ends up with egg on their face for this and move on.

edit: for those of you who actually care, here is a direct quote from the CSRA.

Quote:

In the federal government the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), as amended, prohibits federal employees who have authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action from discriminating against applicants and employees on the bases of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status or political affiliation and from discriminating against an applicant or employee on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the applicant or employee. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on "conduct" to include discrimination based on sexual orientation.

of course the csra doesnt apply to hollywood since they arent part of the government...so its ok for them to do what theyre doing

"Even seemingly harmless shows like "Happy Days" and "Sesame Street"have been used to advance a progressive agenda, according to Shapiro."
All i said was that seemed like BS. You were the one who then acted like I insulted your dying mother or something and that it was somehow crazy that I didnt buy that one part of the article. To address the article as a whole some quotes may have been said in an offhand, joking/sarcastic manner so unless we can hear the entire conversation i wouldnt jump to any conclusions, Also Sharpio has a quote that seemed interesting "Friends hire friends. And those friends just happen to share their politics." hmmm maybe this is less and less conspiratorial. But do i believe that some people in hollywood discriminate based on ideology? Sure. people discriminate on a wide variety of things. Especially when your dealing with members of HUGE, well payed union members So i do understand the concern of making hiring descions based on politics..

sndsgood wrote:

but then fox comes around a republican/conservative station. and they are raked over the coals as being biased and the devil and what have you like they were doing something new or diffrent then the liberal media was doing.

Again the only Fox Station that gets " raked over the coals as being biased and the devil" is the Fox News station. There is no widespread outcry of people claiming that their TV shows have conservative bias. Even tabs believed you were talking about the Fox NEWS station

tabs wrote:

the reference to foxnews was because they are the opposite end to that bias, yet get blasted for being such

And that gets into my point on entertainment vs reporting the news

sndsgood wrote:

as soon as i said fox you jumped on the station because they do news. it didnt even matter about the shows. .

Um it actually did matter about the shows. the shows do get criticism because they are liberal. there is definitely no widespread outcry that they are conservative. Simply because they ARENT conservative. here are some peoples thoughts on their show "Glee"Example1Example2

So when you say fox gets " raked over the coals as being biased and the devil" if youre talking about the TV shows then you have made a false statement that should be retracted immediately. if you meant the news station then all this outrage that I thought thats what you meant was really a giant distraction to avoid the point on comparing news with entertainment. Shame on you LOL

sndsgood wrote:

who owns fox? which side does he lean on? wether its has liberal shows or not is irrelevent. do you believe that the fox network is liberal?

i never said the owner of Fox was liberal. the fact that it has liberal shows is VERY relevant because when you insist there is a large outcry from people that Fox is conservative you should understand the only way that statement is true is when its applied to their news station so dont go all PMS on me when i point that out.

Ill leave you with this article where a conservative proudly talks about shows that have conservative underlinings. Included is NBC's show "Chuck" just saying... check it out Maybe youll want to check out some of these shows lol

Well to be honest i find the lack of logic, reasoning and debate skills on this forum to be disappointing. it seems most people on here argue the smallest thing purely for that sake of arguing with no regard for being reasonable, intellectually honest, or moving forward so ill give you the last word and i think im going to stay in the car section from here on out. And try not to be too scared that the liberals are taking over. i mean we did just see a huge rise of republicans in the house. LOL take care man. PEACE!

volt i acted like i attacked your mother? go back and read my origonal reply to you. i just called out the fact that people for years said there was no liberal bias and now here come all these hollywood types that are saying yes there is. i ddint attack you. i pretty much felt you were agreeing with me but then you got on the whole fox news deal when i mentioned the fox network and things went down hill. i myself dont take anything personal on here nor do i name call when i disagree with someone nor do i insult there intelligence because i disagree with there viewpoint. all things you have done. so dont go trying to insult me then act like your taking the high road.

goodwrench. call them snipets as the article did or call them quotes as i did. either way it doesnt matter what u call them. you wanted more then snipets and i pointed out the article was about shaprio's book and they are not going to print out the entire book for you. sorry if you want more you will have to buy the book. this article wasn't posted as scientific proof. i just posted it because i thought it was very intresting that all the liberals were coming out and admitting what they were doing. something you wouldn't have seen 20 or even 10 years ago happening.

now i want to argue hiring practices? i beleive my hiring argument practices was close to one of the first thing i brought up. i never said there was a conspiracy about hring practices. you i believe brought up the whole conspiracy issue, the article brought up hiring practices and i said i thought that was wrong. id think it was wrong to happen on either side. you seem to be arguing with me for no reason.

i didnt start out with any agenda. if was starting out with anything it was just the article stating how people are coming out and saying yes there is a liberal bias in the media which for years people how screamed there wasn't. that was the whole point of this.it was simply to point out that hollywood is now coming out and admitting it nor did i start the plot to say kids were being brainwashed. you yourself brought up that very point. you not me. i never mentioned it once. you did. as for the i said sesame street is brainwashing kids again i never did. you quoted it yourself, i said when you skew things to attack people your against. that can be as simple as throwing in an anti war message such as what they mentioned was happening in happy days and the partridge family. i never said anything about brainwashing kids. you started that whole issue as well. here i will say this though and then you can quote it all you want. if you are making a kids shows and you have to throw in your political message, i think that is pathetic of you. there you go. u can quote that one all u want.

goodwrench. call them snipets as the article did or call them quotes as i did. either way it doesnt matter what u call them. you wanted more then snipets and i pointed out the article was about shaprio's book and they are not going to print out the entire book for you. sorry if you want more you will have to buy the book. this article wasn't posted as scientific proof. i just posted it because i thought it was very intresting that all the liberals were coming out and admitting what they were doing. something you wouldn't have seen 20 or even 10 years ago happening.

Snippets as the article calls it, could be taken out of context, or just chosen to fulfil their arguments. I'd would make more of a judgment on the full story. And really again this is not anything new, even Reagan was a snitch and basically black listed to the CIA back in the early Cold War era if any one was remotely left... er communist. So yhea, the left in Hollywood was there and known for way over 20 years ago.

Quote:

now i want to argue hiring practices? i beleive my hiring argument practices was close to one of the first thing i brought up. i never said there was a conspiracy about hring practices. you i believe brought up the whole conspiracy issue, the article brought up hiring practices and i said i thought that was wrong. id think it was wrong to happen on either side. you seem to be arguing with me for no reason.

The point of it was... so what if they hire a specific a republican, a democrat, a independent or what ever party they choose to be? Will there be a conspiracy as the end result? I mean why should we take note on this specific one. I would think you'd be better than posting a sensational article than this.

Quote:

i didnt start out with any agenda. if was starting out with anything it was just the article stating how people are coming out and saying yes there is a liberal bias in the media which for years people how screamed there wasn't. that was the whole point of this.

Then those people must be living under a rock. Personally I never heard such a thing, as I thought it was already understood.

Quote:

that was the whole point of this.it was simply to point out that hollywood is now coming out and admitting it nor did i start the plot to say kids were being brainwashed. you yourself brought up that very point. you not me. i never mentioned it once. you did. as for the i said sesame street is brainwashing kids again i never did. you quoted it yourself, i said when you skew things to attack people your against.

Yhea you're right you never did said it. I just said it for you, as that was your intention with that comment and this article as whole.

Quote:

never said anything about brainwashing kids. you started that whole issue as well. here i will say this though and then you can quote it all you want. if you are making a kids shows and you have to throw in your political message, i think that is pathetic of you. there you go. u can quote that one all u want.

So where is it? Educating kids on how to associate with others, read and work with numbers to much of a liberal message for you?

(tabs) wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Also something that you are born with (race, ethnicity, gender) is a bit different than a political view, which is why one discrimination is illegal and the other is not. Ponder that before you steal useless thoughts.

you're not born with a certain religion are you? not all handicaps are from birth are they? even some gay people will tell you it was a choice vs being born that way, although not all agree, but having a sex change operation definitely is a choice. chazz bono better not apply at your place, right? so by your logic just because these things are not something a person was born with it should be free to discriminate against them, right? please explain the difference.

Since the town you are at has no other religion other than christianity, actually in some religions you are born into it, baptize and circumcisions ring a bell? If you can not differentiate a handicap, religion, a color, a gender, a sexual orientation... something you're innate with vs a political view, what more can be said about your wits... Tell me, were you one of the kids that put a square block in a circular hole and insisted, since it came in the same kit, all the shapes should fit in that circular hole?

Quote:

i mean is your argument seriously that since the eeoc doesnt safeguard against discrimination against political affiliations that it is perfectly ok to exclude them?

Bingo. Yes. You got it. Of course. You betcha. Hey, if Smith and Wesson puts forth a non hippie to run the corporation. ABC can place a non-conservative person to portray in a low income family sitcom, like Rosanne.
For a person who could careless about having protection in a hate crime, now you want to champion and group together political views with race, gender, ethnicity and all get the same protection.
Just like the other thread where the trans gender didn't deserve a hate crime because you and the bible do not agree with that way of life. Now this discrimination against Republicans should be protected, because now you can associate.
How convenient.

(tabs) wrote:

edit: for those of you who actually care, here is a direct quote from the CSRA.

Quote:

In the federal government the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), as amended, prohibits federal employees who have authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action from discriminating against applicants and employees on the bases of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status or political affiliation and from discriminating against an applicant or employee on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the applicant or employee. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on "conduct" to include discrimination based on sexual orientation.

of course the csra doesnt apply to hollywood since they arent part of the government...so its ok for them to do what theyre doing

The left believes in chinese food. They don't just like it themselves...they cannot fathom how anyone else could not possbily love it as well. And if you don't like chinese food, then there is something wrong with you, and we'll do anything we can to blacklist you. (Jon Voight)

goodwrench. call them snipets as the article did or call them quotes as i did. either way it doesnt matter what u call them. you wanted more then snipets and i pointed out the article was about shaprio's book and they are not going to print out the entire book for you. sorry if you want more you will have to buy the book. this article wasn't posted as scientific proof. i just posted it because i thought it was very intresting that all the liberals were coming out and admitting what they were doing. something you wouldn't have seen 20 or even 10 years ago happening.

Snippets as the article calls it, could be taken out of context, or just chosen to fulfil their arguments. I'd would make more of a judgment on the full story. And really again this is not anything new, even Reagan was a snitch and basically black listed to the CIA back in the early Cold War era if any one was remotely left... er communist. So yhea, the left in Hollywood was there and known for way over 20 years ago.

there are people on this very site who just a few years ago were screaming at the top of there lungs saying that there was absolutly no media bias whatsoever. so no, not everyone new.

Quote:

now i want to argue hiring practices? i beleive my hiring argument practices was close to one of the first thing i brought up. i never said there was a conspiracy about hring practices. you i believe brought up the whole conspiracy issue, the article brought up hiring practices and i said i thought that was wrong. id think it was wrong to happen on either side. you seem to be arguing with me for no reason.

The point of it was... so what if they hire a specific a republican, a democrat, a independent or what ever party they choose to be? Will there be a conspiracy as the end result? I mean why should we take note on this specific one. I would think you'd be better than posting a sensational article than this.

again with the whole conspiracy. why do you have to take everything anyone says and take it out to the 9th degree so what? sorry i guess i just feel its pretty sad to hire people that fit your political agenda. i posted the article because i thought it was interesting they were basically admiting what it versus saying it didnt exist like it used to be. that and this place has been dead in here.

Quote:

i didnt start out with any agenda. if was starting out with anything it was just the article stating how people are coming out and saying yes there is a liberal bias in the media which for years people how screamed there wasn't. that was the whole point of this.

Then those people must be living under a rock. Personally I never heard such a thing, as I thought it was already understood.

as said above people on this site used to say it didnt exist.

Quote:

that was the whole point of this.it was simply to point out that hollywood is now coming out and admitting it nor did i start the plot to say kids were being brainwashed. you yourself brought up that very point. you not me. i never mentioned it once. you did. as for the i said sesame street is brainwashing kids again i never did. you quoted it yourself, i said when you skew things to attack people your against.

Yhea you're right you never did said it. I just said it for you, as that was your intention with that comment and this article as whole.

Quote:

never said anything about brainwashing kids. you started that whole issue as well. here i will say this though and then you can quote it all you want. if you are making a kids shows and you have to throw in your political message, i think that is pathetic of you. there you go. u can quote that one all u want.

So where is it? Educating kids on how to associate with others, read and work with numbers to much of a liberal message for you?

you know good and well thats not what i meaning. the article showed several examples of how they were adding things into shows to as they said it, tick off the other side and again you didnt even read what i said i said "IF" not that they specifically were for sesame street, theres a big diffrence.

(tabs) wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Also something that you are born with (race, ethnicity, gender) is a bit different than a political view, which is why one discrimination is illegal and the other is not. Ponder that before you steal useless thoughts.

you're not born with a certain religion are you? not all handicaps are from birth are they? even some gay people will tell you it was a choice vs being born that way, although not all agree, but having a sex change operation definitely is a choice. chazz bono better not apply at your place, right? so by your logic just because these things are not something a person was born with it should be free to discriminate against them, right? please explain the difference.

Since the town you are at has no other religion other than christianity, actually in some religions you are born into it, baptize and circumcisions ring a bell? If you can not differentiate a handicap, religion, a color, a gender, a sexual orientation... something you're innate with vs a political view, what more can be said about your wits... Tell me, were you one of the kids that put a square block in a circular hole and insisted, since it came in the same kit, all the shapes should fit in that circular hole?

Quote:

i mean is your argument seriously that since the eeoc doesnt safeguard against discrimination against political affiliations that it is perfectly ok to exclude them?

Bingo. Yes. You got it. Of course. You betcha. Hey, if Smith and Wesson puts forth a non hippie to run the corporation. ABC can place a non-conservative person to portray in a low income family sitcom, like Rosanne.
For a person who could careless about having protection in a hate crime, now you want to champion and group together political views with race, gender, ethnicity and all get the same protection.
Just like the other thread where the trans gender didn't deserve a hate crime because you and the bible do not agree with that way of life. Now this discrimination against Republicans should be protected, because now you can associate.
How convenient.

goodwrench. if you ever entered your car in a car show, if im the judge, do you think it would be totally cool and okay if i docked you 50 points becaues you weren't conservative? you know. your car is just as good as the guys next to you. but he thinks like me so im going to award him more points. or do you think that you should be judged the same as the next person no matter his political views? i have no problem with someone having a diffrent view. i guess i just choose to treat people equally.